PerPlexied
Platinum Member
Joined: November 2003
Posts: 1,484
|
Post by PerPlexied on Feb 11, 2008 14:54:08 GMT -5
I can understand where people are coming from about Kanye. Here is a man so arrogant that he has to make a crack to Common while accepting his award before he brings up his mother. He should've just dropped the tactless "I'm God's gift to music" act and dedicated the award to his mom and let that be that.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 14:58:59 GMT -5
You're half right. "Album of the year" is definitely about honoring the albums with the highest critical acclaim. Album popularity though has nothing to do with the nominees & certainly not a factor in determining a winner. This has never really been the case Well, I can't see any unknown artists on the AOTY nominations' list, so I would guess that popularity counts a lot, sometimes more than the critical reception of the record. Add in that an artist's PAST popularity and acclaim also have a role, and you see why Santana's Supernatural or U2's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb were awarded Grammys for AOTY. They might have been good albums, but the best of the year? Really? Sales and popularity (both past and present) helped those album go the extra mile to receive Grammys in the main category. This year it's the opposite: an album that virtually nobody has heard got the Grammy. Both factors determine the win in this particular category. Getting a grammy helps sales but sales doesn't help the grammys Look at it this way. The Oscar, the movie equivalent of the Grammy, is the same way. Awards are given out by critical acclaim, not by consumer success in that one too. Whether you think Santana and U2 were or were not actually deserving of album of the year in those years is a matter of personal opinion. But, they don't poll the consumers for their opinion on these awards, the Grammys like the Oscars, are voted on and awarded within the industry.
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Feb 11, 2008 15:05:47 GMT -5
Well, I can't see any unknown artists on the AOTY nominations' list, so I would guess that popularity counts a lot, sometimes more than the critical reception of the record. Add in that an artist's PAST popularity and acclaim also have a role, and you see why Santana's Supernatural or U2's How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb were awarded Grammys for AOTY. They might have been good albums, but the best of the year? Really? Sales and popularity (both past and present) helped those album go the extra mile to receive Grammys in the main category. This year it's the opposite: an album that virtually nobody has heard got the Grammy. Both factors determine the win in this particular category. Getting a grammy helps sales but sales doesn't help the grammys I will believe this when I see an up-and-coming (or unknown), commercially unsuccessful artist get that Grammy.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Feb 11, 2008 15:10:02 GMT -5
If voting for the Grammys is anything like any other award show that I'm familiar with, it's not even completely reliable. Think about it this way. They're voted on by people WITHIN the industry who KNOW the ins and outs of the industry. I could vote for the ECMA's (the east coast of Canada's version of the Grammys) if I joined a specific music association by paying a small fee. I'm allowed and since I'm a student of Recording Arts, I'd probably be suitable for the panel as well. Based on people that have been associated with the award show for a long time, there is a lot of "join and vote for your friends" going on. Since the Grammy's is a larger scale, more important event, if this happened it would probably even be record label associated even. If it's not and is actually more valid, well, I take solace in the fact that the people on the voting panels know what to look for when looking at good recordings because they've been there themselves.
If you want a popularity contest and sales-influenced award show, I'd say watch the American Music Awards and Billboard Music Awards.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 15:10:15 GMT -5
Getting a grammy helps sales but sales doesn't help the grammys I will believe this when I see an up-and-coming (or unknown), commercially unsuccessful artist get that Grammy. Herbie Hancock is known but not commercially successful To get critical acclaim, you have to be known, you don't necessarily have to sell records. Which is what the grammys is all about. Critical acclaim, not record sales.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 15:12:56 GMT -5
River: The Joni Letters spent 2 weeks on the BB200 peaking at #118,. Not exactly commercial success
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Feb 11, 2008 15:15:35 GMT -5
Herbie Hancock is known but not commercially successful To get critical acclaim, you have to be known, you don't necessarily have to sell records Hmmm, no: to get critical acclaim you have to release albums that the critics like, it has nothing to do with sales, whereas you have to sell to be known/popular.
|
|
tsharky
6x Platinum Member
5 Time Grammy Winner
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 6,557
|
Post by tsharky on Feb 11, 2008 15:31:31 GMT -5
I love kanye and he did deserve album of the year- he really did. But-- he really pissed me off with his cocky acceptance speech. Part of it was funny-- but he didn't have to mock others to make his point. lol I still love him- but he needs to show respect for others and stop bragging, because it turns people off.
I did love Vince Gill's jab at him- classic! But at least kanye took it well and laughed. He gained back a few points in my book for taking the joke well.
|
|
tsharky
6x Platinum Member
5 Time Grammy Winner
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 6,557
|
Post by tsharky on Feb 11, 2008 15:34:33 GMT -5
My favorite performances of the night:
1. Carrie-- she ROCKED that song-- reminded me of Christina Aguilara at the end with those vocal riffs. And I loved the Stomp production and fire-- very hot. :)
2. Kanye: he was fantastic on stronger.....Loved the special effects and overall- the tribute to his mom was very moving.
3. Andrea Bocelli and Josh Groban-- amazing, made me cry. So beautiful.
4. Rianna and the Time-- very fun, entertaining, good vocals- loved it.
5. Beyonce and Tina Turner-- very good-- love them both.
|
|
BlahBlahBlah
Platinum Member
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 1,964
|
Post by BlahBlahBlah on Feb 11, 2008 15:42:30 GMT -5
The fact that Kala didn't even get a nomination sort of obliterates any legitimacy these awards could have held this year. Thank you. I thought she would've at least gotten a nomination for Best Urban Alternative Performance.
|
|
Eloqueen™
Diamond Member
TSC: Certified Member
Joined: September 2007
Posts: 20,930
|
Post by Eloqueen™ on Feb 11, 2008 15:49:19 GMT -5
I wanted to love Carrie's performance. But in the end it came off like she was trying to be like Christina with such a vocal showoff. Only problem is, is that her vocal show-off fell a little flat. You could tell she really had to struggle to hit those notes. Oh well. She still has an amazing voice, it is just not suited for that type of performance.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 15:50:40 GMT -5
Herbie Hancock is known but not commercially successful To get critical acclaim, you have to be known, you don't necessarily have to sell records Hmmm, no: to get critical acclaim you have to release albums that the critics like, it has nothing to do with sales, whereas you have to sell to be known/popular. And grammy's are voted on and awarded by the critics? or the fans? If it is the fans, I don't remember seeing my ballot in the mail. Using your definition, how did Herbie Hancock win, much less get nominated without commercial success?
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Feb 11, 2008 16:06:34 GMT -5
Hmmm, no: to get critical acclaim you have to release albums that the critics like, it has nothing to do with sales, whereas you have to sell to be known/popular. And grammy's are voted on and awarded by the critics? or the fans? If it is the fans, I don't remember seeing my ballot in the mail. Using your definition, how did Herbie Hancock win, much less get nominated without commercial success? He won because he has been successful in the past. He sold enough records to become a known artist. Had he been an unknown artist (no hit albums under his belt), no amount of critical acclaim in the world could have given him AOTY. That's why I say that sales (past and present) are important to win this Grammy.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 16:46:44 GMT -5
Herbie Hancock had 1 platinum album in 1986 and another in 1994
Never multi-platinum
Not exactly "album of the year" stats if past or present commercial success is part of the crieria for a grammy
|
|
|
Post by busyboy on Feb 11, 2008 16:52:48 GMT -5
Enough to make him known.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,517
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 11, 2008 17:14:02 GMT -5
I wanted to love Carrie's performance. But in the end it came off like she was trying to be like Christina with such a vocal showoff. Only problem is, is that her vocal show-off fell a little flat. You could tell she really had to struggle to hit those notes. Oh well. She still has an amazing voice, it is just not suited for that type of performance. It didn't help that she was sick.
|
|
jenglisbe
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 34,517
|
Post by jenglisbe on Feb 11, 2008 17:20:25 GMT -5
In terms of "criteria" for the Grammys, there is no set criteria. NARAS is made up of musicians, writers, singers, producers, etc. There are thousands of members, all of whom are eligible to vote for the Grammys. That is why people talk about it being recognition from their peers. Voters then vote on what they consider to be the "best" in each category, using whatever criteria they choose.
Where popularity comes into it is that obviously more popular artists get more exposure, so more voters are aware of them. More people know Kanye than know M.I.A., so to that end popularity is a "criteria" - but it's not direct. It's just that more people are familiar with Kanye, so he has an advantage in that sense.
In terms of critics, they don't vote for the Grammys (unless they are professional musicians), so that isn't really a criteria either. Some artists may look to critics for suggestions of what to listen to or something, but again it isn't a direct criteria.
In the end, it's just artists voting on fellow artists. Because the large portion of NARAS are musicians, acts like Herbie Hancock, Norah Jones, etc. (i.e. people who play their own music and use real musicians) are well-liked. Producer-driven music like rap, a lot of R&B, etc. doesn't often do as well because musicians aren't as into beats and things of that nature. That is why urban songs have a hard time winning Record and why someone like Herbie Hancock or Steely Dan can upset in Album of the Year.
As I have said before, sales/public, critics, and the Grammys are three separate bodies with separate motivations/interests. To try and compare them or make them line up is pointless because they aren't the same.
|
|
JamaicaFunk²
Diamond Member
Will & Grace!
Joined: January 2005
Posts: 13,774
|
Post by JamaicaFunk² on Feb 11, 2008 17:25:32 GMT -5
Wow, some people seriously believe Kanye is exploiting his mother's death for more attention and record sales? Shame. I wouldn't go so far as to say he's "exploiting" her death, but he's gotten a bit overly-dramatic about it all. I'm sure there were plenty of artists at the Grammy's and elsewhere who've never felt the need to publicly cry out over the close, personal death of a loved one.
|
|
jazklash
Platinum Member
Joined: December 2007
Posts: 1,222
|
Post by jazklash on Feb 11, 2008 17:27:31 GMT -5
As far as I can remember (sort of), the only years where the Grammys actually got it right - as in fitting any criteria of LOGIC these awards should fit their standards into - were 1983 and 1997. Other than that, I just don't see any point in bashing the Grammys. Not anymore, nor ever. Fogeyness and the Grammys are so attached that it just wouldn't feel like the Grammys without it, right? ;)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 11, 2008 17:35:37 GMT -5
In terms of "criteria" for the Grammys, there is no set criteria. NARAS is made up of musicians, writers, singers, producers, etc. There are thousands of members, all of whom are eligible to vote for the Grammys. That is why people talk about it being recognition from their peers. Voters then vote on what they consider to be the "best" in each category, using whatever criteria they choose. Where popularity comes into it is that obviously more popular artists get more exposure, so more voters are aware of them. More people know Kanye than know M.I.A., so to that end popularity is a "criteria" - but it's not direct. It's just that more people are familiar with Kanye, so he has an advantage in that sense. In terms of critics, they don't vote for the Grammys (unless they are professional musicians), so that isn't really a criteria either. Some artists may look to critics for suggestions of what to listen to or something, but again it isn't a direct criteria. In the end, it's just artists voting on fellow artists. Because the large portion of NARAS are musicians, acts like Herbie Hancock, Norah Jones, etc. (i.e. people who play their own music and use real musicians) are well-liked. Producer-driven music like rap, a lot of R&B, etc. doesn't often do as well because musicians aren't as into beats and things of that nature. That is why urban songs have a hard time winning Record and why someone like Herbie Hancock or Steely Dan can upset in Album of the Year. As I have said before, sales/public, critics, and the Grammys are three separate bodies with separate motivations/interests. To try and compare them or make them line up is pointless because they aren't the same. I agree with most of that, the reference to rap sounds a little iffy though. The indutsry votes on itself, much like the Oscars. They do not look at sales receipts or chart performance in picking a winner in either awards show.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Feb 11, 2008 18:03:43 GMT -5
No- but no question they have when it comes to nominating some past folk. That, and the nominee middle-of-the-roadness. Why it earned the nicknames it did.
Clearly, though, "Rehab" winning the awards it did is a good sign, for a couple reasons. For one, the track is pretty darn good; two, voters clearly weren't influenced by her mess of a lidestyle. That's a tiny step away from the "Grannies" distinction.
|
|
PergiePerg
Platinum Member
^Perfection.
Joined: November 2007
Posts: 1,017
|
Post by PergiePerg on Feb 11, 2008 18:20:58 GMT -5
I love how people claim the Grammy's are corrupt just cuz they aren't handing out awards to the artists you like. It don't work that way y'all!
|
|
––•( Miðð )•––
3x Platinum Member
Dw i'n hoffi dysgu Cymraeg!
Joined: October 2007
Posts: 3,334
|
Post by ––•( Miðð )•–– on Feb 11, 2008 18:31:05 GMT -5
Overall, the Grammys sucked this year, IMO.
|
|
Hotlantan
New Member
Joined: July 2006
Posts: 179
|
Post by Hotlantan on Feb 11, 2008 19:15:43 GMT -5
Instrumental Soloist Performance (Without Orchestra): "Beethoven Sonatas, Vol. 3," Garrick Ohlsson.Congrats to Garrick Ohlsson for taking “Best Instrumental Soloist Performance (without Orchestra)”, because seriously, f*ck orchestras.
|
|
Kal-El
Gold Member
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 888
|
Post by Kal-El on Feb 11, 2008 19:58:20 GMT -5
Carrie couldn't handle the notes? B*tch please, she's hit 'em and then some in the past. Grammy performance album up at nixmixmusicblog.blogspot.com
|
|
tsharky
6x Platinum Member
5 Time Grammy Winner
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 6,557
|
Post by tsharky on Feb 11, 2008 20:31:24 GMT -5
Carrie couldn't handle the notes? B*tch please, she's hit 'em and then some in the past. Grammy performance album up at nixmixmusicblog.blogspot.comthank you!! Carrie NAILED those notes-- she rocked! Who in their right mind is trying to say she didn't hit them well?? people will do anything to bash her-- I swear-- they must make lists of crazy things to dream up to try to bring her down. The bashing is ridiculous. She did incredible!
|
|
tsharky
6x Platinum Member
5 Time Grammy Winner
Joined: February 2007
Posts: 6,557
|
Post by tsharky on Feb 11, 2008 20:33:01 GMT -5
I wanted to love Carrie's performance. But in the end it came off like she was trying to be like Christina with such a vocal showoff. Only problem is, is that her vocal show-off fell a little flat. You could tell she really had to struggle to hit those notes. Oh well. She still has an amazing voice, it is just not suited for that type of performance. disagree. She hit those notes incredibly and she rocked. She did not struggle at all-- it seemed effortless to me.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Feb 11, 2008 20:34:40 GMT -5
It seemed effortless but I didnt like her performance at all. I thought the stomp-esque beat was unnecessary and didnt go well. Although she has grown in stage-presence, I still don't think she should be doing any dancing. And the notes at the end were too showy for me.
|
|
|
Post by when the pawn... on Feb 11, 2008 20:43:40 GMT -5
Why is there no songwriting category for Pop as there is in Rock, R&B, Rap, Country etc...? If so, Amy would've broken the record...
|
|
sunpeach
New Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 166
|
Post by sunpeach on Feb 11, 2008 20:46:00 GMT -5
Love Carrie but she was very "stiff" singing "BHC." She just wasn't very relaxed- the singing was fine, she hit the notes fine- but this could have been a break-out performance for her but it wasn't. You had to wonder if after all this time and she's still not taking command of the stage if she is ever going to get there and go to that next level. This was the first time I truly noticed the "robotic" charge that has been leveled against her from the start- I never really saw that with her on AI even though it came up again and again. The voice was there n all it's splendor, but her "essence," her X-factor, seemed to not be there- it was more like she was a stand-in than the real thing- it was an "off" night for her.
|
|